Counting injury deaths

A comparison of two definitions and two countries

Tsung-Hsueh Lu, Annjhih Hsiao, Pei Ching Chang, Yao Cheng Chao, Chuan Chiang Hsu, Hua Chun Peng, Lea Hua Chen, Ichiro Kawachi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives This study sought to examine the discrepancy in counting injury deaths according to two definitions, that is, (a) external cause of injury as the underlying cause of death (UCOD), and (b) with mention of external cause of injury, and differences in certification practices between Taiwan and the USA. Methods We calculated the percentage (U/M%) in which external cause of injury was selected as the UCOD (U) among deaths with mention (M) of external cause of injury anywhere on the death certificate to assess the discrepancy between the two definitions in counting injury deaths. Results The discrepancy was small in Taiwan and in the USA for transport injuries (with U/M% 99% and 98%) and intentional self-harm (100% and 100%) and large for accidental suffocation (64% and 29%) as well as complications of medical and surgical care (61% and 10%). The magnitude of discrepancy was not consistent between countries in accidental falls (96% vs 81%) and accidental drowning (80% vs 97%). Certifiers in Taiwan were more likely to report an accidental fall in Part I of the death certificate and less likely to report medical conditions (such as stroke, Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease, etc) with accidental suffocation than their counterpart US certifiers. Conclusions The counting of injury deaths according to two definitions varied by external cause of injury as well as between countries. For some external causes of injury with high discrepancies, we suggest presenting the number of injury deaths according to two definitions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e127-e132
JournalInjury Prevention
Volume21
Issue numberE1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Apr 1

Fingerprint

Wounds and Injuries
Accidental Falls
Taiwan
Death Certificates
Asphyxia
Cause of Death
Certification
Parkinson Disease
Alzheimer Disease
Stroke

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Lu, T-H., Hsiao, A., Chang, P. C., Chao, Y. C., Hsu, C. C., Peng, H. C., ... Kawachi, I. (2015). Counting injury deaths: A comparison of two definitions and two countries. Injury Prevention, 21(E1), e127-e132. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2013-040974
Lu, Tsung-Hsueh ; Hsiao, Annjhih ; Chang, Pei Ching ; Chao, Yao Cheng ; Hsu, Chuan Chiang ; Peng, Hua Chun ; Chen, Lea Hua ; Kawachi, Ichiro. / Counting injury deaths : A comparison of two definitions and two countries. In: Injury Prevention. 2015 ; Vol. 21, No. E1. pp. e127-e132.
@article{ee9b01556aa14e169f915284aabe4ce3,
title = "Counting injury deaths: A comparison of two definitions and two countries",
abstract = "Objectives This study sought to examine the discrepancy in counting injury deaths according to two definitions, that is, (a) external cause of injury as the underlying cause of death (UCOD), and (b) with mention of external cause of injury, and differences in certification practices between Taiwan and the USA. Methods We calculated the percentage (U/M{\%}) in which external cause of injury was selected as the UCOD (U) among deaths with mention (M) of external cause of injury anywhere on the death certificate to assess the discrepancy between the two definitions in counting injury deaths. Results The discrepancy was small in Taiwan and in the USA for transport injuries (with U/M{\%} 99{\%} and 98{\%}) and intentional self-harm (100{\%} and 100{\%}) and large for accidental suffocation (64{\%} and 29{\%}) as well as complications of medical and surgical care (61{\%} and 10{\%}). The magnitude of discrepancy was not consistent between countries in accidental falls (96{\%} vs 81{\%}) and accidental drowning (80{\%} vs 97{\%}). Certifiers in Taiwan were more likely to report an accidental fall in Part I of the death certificate and less likely to report medical conditions (such as stroke, Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease, etc) with accidental suffocation than their counterpart US certifiers. Conclusions The counting of injury deaths according to two definitions varied by external cause of injury as well as between countries. For some external causes of injury with high discrepancies, we suggest presenting the number of injury deaths according to two definitions.",
author = "Tsung-Hsueh Lu and Annjhih Hsiao and Chang, {Pei Ching} and Chao, {Yao Cheng} and Hsu, {Chuan Chiang} and Peng, {Hua Chun} and Chen, {Lea Hua} and Ichiro Kawachi",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/injuryprev-2013-040974",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "e127--e132",
journal = "Injury Prevention",
issn = "1353-8047",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "E1",

}

Lu, T-H, Hsiao, A, Chang, PC, Chao, YC, Hsu, CC, Peng, HC, Chen, LH & Kawachi, I 2015, 'Counting injury deaths: A comparison of two definitions and two countries', Injury Prevention, vol. 21, no. E1, pp. e127-e132. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2013-040974

Counting injury deaths : A comparison of two definitions and two countries. / Lu, Tsung-Hsueh; Hsiao, Annjhih; Chang, Pei Ching; Chao, Yao Cheng; Hsu, Chuan Chiang; Peng, Hua Chun; Chen, Lea Hua; Kawachi, Ichiro.

In: Injury Prevention, Vol. 21, No. E1, 01.04.2015, p. e127-e132.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Counting injury deaths

T2 - A comparison of two definitions and two countries

AU - Lu, Tsung-Hsueh

AU - Hsiao, Annjhih

AU - Chang, Pei Ching

AU - Chao, Yao Cheng

AU - Hsu, Chuan Chiang

AU - Peng, Hua Chun

AU - Chen, Lea Hua

AU - Kawachi, Ichiro

PY - 2015/4/1

Y1 - 2015/4/1

N2 - Objectives This study sought to examine the discrepancy in counting injury deaths according to two definitions, that is, (a) external cause of injury as the underlying cause of death (UCOD), and (b) with mention of external cause of injury, and differences in certification practices between Taiwan and the USA. Methods We calculated the percentage (U/M%) in which external cause of injury was selected as the UCOD (U) among deaths with mention (M) of external cause of injury anywhere on the death certificate to assess the discrepancy between the two definitions in counting injury deaths. Results The discrepancy was small in Taiwan and in the USA for transport injuries (with U/M% 99% and 98%) and intentional self-harm (100% and 100%) and large for accidental suffocation (64% and 29%) as well as complications of medical and surgical care (61% and 10%). The magnitude of discrepancy was not consistent between countries in accidental falls (96% vs 81%) and accidental drowning (80% vs 97%). Certifiers in Taiwan were more likely to report an accidental fall in Part I of the death certificate and less likely to report medical conditions (such as stroke, Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease, etc) with accidental suffocation than their counterpart US certifiers. Conclusions The counting of injury deaths according to two definitions varied by external cause of injury as well as between countries. For some external causes of injury with high discrepancies, we suggest presenting the number of injury deaths according to two definitions.

AB - Objectives This study sought to examine the discrepancy in counting injury deaths according to two definitions, that is, (a) external cause of injury as the underlying cause of death (UCOD), and (b) with mention of external cause of injury, and differences in certification practices between Taiwan and the USA. Methods We calculated the percentage (U/M%) in which external cause of injury was selected as the UCOD (U) among deaths with mention (M) of external cause of injury anywhere on the death certificate to assess the discrepancy between the two definitions in counting injury deaths. Results The discrepancy was small in Taiwan and in the USA for transport injuries (with U/M% 99% and 98%) and intentional self-harm (100% and 100%) and large for accidental suffocation (64% and 29%) as well as complications of medical and surgical care (61% and 10%). The magnitude of discrepancy was not consistent between countries in accidental falls (96% vs 81%) and accidental drowning (80% vs 97%). Certifiers in Taiwan were more likely to report an accidental fall in Part I of the death certificate and less likely to report medical conditions (such as stroke, Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease, etc) with accidental suffocation than their counterpart US certifiers. Conclusions The counting of injury deaths according to two definitions varied by external cause of injury as well as between countries. For some external causes of injury with high discrepancies, we suggest presenting the number of injury deaths according to two definitions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939799406&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84939799406&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/injuryprev-2013-040974

DO - 10.1136/injuryprev-2013-040974

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - e127-e132

JO - Injury Prevention

JF - Injury Prevention

SN - 1353-8047

IS - E1

ER -